34 C.F.R. § 668.125

Proceedings to recover liabilities owed relating to approved borrower defense claims

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If the Department determines that the institution is liable for any amounts discharged or reimbursed to borrowers under the discharge process described in § 685.408, it will provide the institution with written notice of the determination and the amount and basis of the liability.

(b) An institution may request review of the determination that it is liable for the amounts discharged or reimbursed by filing a written request for review with the designated department official no later than 45 days from the date that the institution receives the written notice.

(c) Upon receipt of an institution's request for review, the designated official arranges for a hearing before a hearing official.

(d) Except as provided in this section, the proceedings will be conducted in accordance with §§ 668.115 to 668.124 of this subpart. For purposes of this section references in §§ 668.115 to 668.124 to a final audit determination or a final program review determination will be read to refer to the written notice provided under paragraph (a) of this section.

(e) In place of the provisions in § 668.116(d), the following requirements shall apply:

(1) The Department has the burden of production to demonstrate that loans made to students to attend the institution were discharged on the basis of a borrower defense to repayment claim.

(2) The institution has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the decision to discharge the loans was incorrect or inconsistent with law and that the institution is not liable for the loan amounts discharged or reimbursed.

(3) A party may submit as evidence to the hearing official only materials within one or more of the following categories:

(i) Materials submitted to the Department during the process of adjudicating claims by borrowers relating to alleged acts or omissions of the institution, including materials submitted by the borrowers, the institution or any third parties;

(ii) Any material on which the Department relied in adjudicating claims by borrowers relating to alleged acts or omissions of the institution and provided by the Department to the institution; and

(iii) The institution may submit any other relevant documentary evidence that relates to the bases cited by the Department in approving the borrower defense claims and pursuing recoupment from the institution.

[87 FR 66041, Nov. 1, 2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2023–2024 · leading case: Theresa Sweet v. Everglades Coll., Inc, 121 F.4th 32 (9th Cir. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Theresa Sweet v. Everglades Coll., Inc, 121 F.4th 32 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 668.125 . But even when the Department initiates a 7 Because the Waller rule and its exception are closely related to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) governing voluntary dismissals, federal courts often use the terms “formal legal prejudice” and “plain legal…”

Career Colleges & Schs. of Texas v. United States Dep't of Educ. (W.D. Tex. 2023). · cites it 2× “See 34 C.F.R. § 668.125 . If DOE opts to initiate a recoupment proceeding, it must give written notice to the school of the borrower-defense determination, the basis of liability, and the amount of the discharge.”

Career Colleges v. EDUC (5th Cir. 2024). “See 34 C.F.R. § 668.125 (e)(2) (the school bears the burden to prove that “the decision to discharge the loans was incorrect or inconsistent with the law and that the institution is not liable for the loan amounts discharged or reimbursed” in the subsequent recoupment…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.